on the market as well as safe are rejected by the panel. Also opposed is the philos ophy that regulation is necessary to re duce the diversity of chemicals to which humans are exposed. Diversity is needed in the case of drugs because response to medicines does vary among people. Then, too, the availability of alternate substances for the same purpose makes it easier for regulators to restrict the marketing of one when it becomes sus pect as a health hazard. The panel also argues against setting up an efficacy requirement for regulated chemicals outside of those classes— drugs and pesticides—where it is now re quired. In the case of food additives used for flavor or appearance, for example, effectiveness is subjective and difficult to measure. Similarly, usefulness or benefits of many chemicals, according to the panel, are as "difficult to articulate as the risks associated with their use." It urges that quantitative studies of the utility of chemical products be under taken by such agencies as FDA, EPA, the National Bureau of Standards, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. USD A, in particular, is criticized for in sufficient studies on the actual eco nomic consequences of either reduction or elimination of the use of specific pesticides. Yet at one point the panel refers to the difficulty of documenting the "marginal productivity" associated with the heavy use of insecticides and herbicides. For certain chemicals requiring "spe cial environmental health attention"— those with very high or intermediate biological activity—the panel suggests that there is "a legitimate federal health concern in efficacy." The implication is left by the draft's wording that the Government might arrange for support of safety testing even though there are no known or probable risks associated with the chemical. Whenever agencies make regulatory decisions or even if they decide not to act, the panel recommends that the agency involved prepare and make available publicly a "white paper." Such papers would set out the con siderations, scientific data, and ration ale behind the decision in language un derstandable to the public. Those health issues arising from chemical agents also might be covered by occasional interim papers outlining what is and is not known. Whether "white papers" will appear or whether the more costly and contro versial panel recommendations will be adopted remains to be seen. Virtually everyone wants greater assurances of safety of chemicals. But research bud gets are tight, temporary marketing curbs generate industry resistance, "interpreting" the Delaney clause is akin to sacrilege to some—and so on. Much depends upon what the report says when it's officially released and how the regulators and the regulated respond to it.
NSB takes pulse of U.S. science This is the first of two articles dealing with the National Science Board's 1973 annual report. In this article, C&EN looks at a series of statistical science indicators; the second article will ex amine the opinion and attitude surveys in the report. First results of the National Science Board's ambitious experiment to quan tify the state of the health of U.S. sci ence and technology on a broad scale— an effort that has long been needed— have been unveiled in NSB's fifth an nual report, "Science Indicators 1972." NSB is the National Science Founda tion's policy-making group. The results can be interpreted to point to, among other things, a weakening of U.S. science and technology and at the same time, a refreshing public attitude toward science and technology. Clearly stated as a first attempt at a complicated and long-term experiment, NSB presents a series of statistical "sci ence indicators," an opinion survey among scientists and engineers on sci ence and technology issues, and a survey of public attitudes toward science and technology. What use, if any, NSB has made of an Office of Science and Tech nology draft report on the health of U.S. science and technology—which was never made public or allegedly got much beyond draft form—isn't clear. The ultimate goal of the effort, NSB chairman H. E. Carter says in a letter transmitting the report to the President, is a set of indexes that reveal the strengths and weaknesses of U.S. science and technology. "If such indicators can be developed over the coming years," he adds, "they should assist in improving the allocation and management of re sources for science and technology and in guiding the nation's R&D." In the first part of its 1973 report, NSB presents some 68 statistical in dicators related to the international position of U.S. science and technology, resources for research and development, basic research, science and engineering personnel, and institutional capabili ties. The indicators, which rely heavily on NSF-developed statistics, deal largely with the resources for R&D such as funds, manpower, and equipment and the areas to which the resources are di rected. The NSB report presents rela tively few measures of the outputs pro duced from these resources, Dr. Carter notes, adding that "the present paucity of such [indexes] limits the conclusions that can be drawn concerning the quali ty and effectiveness of our scientific and technological effort." Still, even though NSB does raise the caution flag about some of the indica tors, they underscore important trends that have become increasingly apparent in recent years.
ORGANIC INTERMEDIATES FROM SWITZERLAND for dyestuffs pharmaceuticals agrochemicals perfumes photochemicals
NH
,190"
3,4-Methylenedioxyaniline COOH
Φ
NH2
p-Aminobenzoic acid NH 2
& « *
α,α,α -Trif luoro-m-toluidine m-Aminobenzotrifluoride
new ^ ^ C H
3
3-Methylcyclohexanone
"ψ
CH
NH2 3vivCH3
CH 3
2,4,6-Trimethylaniline Mesidine
2-Amino-6-methylheptane For catalog, samples, technical data please contact: US-Agents: Riches-Nelson, Inc., 170 Mason-Street, Greenwich, Conn. 06831 Samples for commercial trade only Agents in other countries: Please inquire
FABRIQUE SUISSE D'EXPLOSIFS SA DOTTIKON
SS .F.
60 years SSF 1913-1973
CH - 5605 Dottikon/Switzerland Phone 057/4 05 55 · Telex 52 694 fasex ch
Sept. 17, 1973 C&EN
13
For instance, in comparing the international position of U.S. science and technology with that of other nations, NSB notes that the proportion of gross national product spent for R&D between 1963 and 1971 declined in the U.S., France, and the U.K. but increased in the U.S.S.R., Japan, and West Germany. The U.S. has had a favorable, but declining "patent balance" (patents of U.S. us. foreign origin awarded in each country), NSB says, but adds that between 1966 and 1970 the U.S. patent balance fell by some 40%. Although the U.S. still retains a strong position as a net exporter of technology-intensive products, various indicators suggest that the position may deteriorate in the near future, NSB says. "Not only did the overall trade balance for high technology industries level off between 1970 and 1971, but the two industries most responsible for the favorable balance in previous years (nonelectrical machinery and chemicals) had their first decline in net exports in 1971." Other statistics in the NSB report suggest that R&D trends in five technology-intensive industries— including the chemical industry—may contribute to a deteriorating position in the future. NSB also indicates that there have been significant shifts in both financial and human resources for R&D. Among other things, NSB points out that total
U.S. expenditures for R&D increased in current dollars throughout the 1961-72 period, but, in terms of constant 1958 dollars, declined 6% between 1968 and 1971 and increased in 1972 to a level equal to that of 1966-67. NSB notes that "federal expenditures for R&D in current dollars leveled off in 1968 and declined slightly thereafter before rising in 1971 and 1972. However, the result in constant 1958 dollars was a reduction that continued through 1971 and amounted to a 12% decline." Although federal funding for industrial R&D did not start its decline until after 1968, NSB says the effects of a relatively slow rate of growth in funding were apparent as early as 1964 in terms of support for R&D scientists and engineers. Even so, the largest reductions did not occur until after 1969, NSB says, which coincides with the onset of larger constant dollar funding reductions. NSB notes that the number of scientists and engineers engaged in R&D reached almost 560,000 in 1969 before declining each year thereafter for a total reduction of some 35,000 scientists and engineers by 1972. NSB indicators for determining the state of basic research are limited to resources expended for the activity. For instance, NSB notes that basic research expenditures rose continually from 1960 through 1972. In constant 1958 dollars, however, spending for
THE LATEST PRODUCT
ZYMOEÏASE
5
